Exodus, Merneptah stela and israelites

I'd be very interested in any dates that you can provide from the Book of Exodus.As for your claims about 'authentic' names, I think you'd be surprised ot realise just how erroneous the Book of Exodus is in that department.For example, Joseph's wife, Asenath is a name that only begins in parallels at the beginning of the 20th dynasty (c.1180-1100), her father Potiphera, earliest mention in 21st dynasty, Potiphar is a version of the same name, Joseph's Egyptian name Zaphenath-paneah has no exact parallel in Egyptian records, but similar names appear only at the start of the 21st Dynasty and later. (McCarter, P K, (1988)("The Patriarchal Age" in Shanks(ed), Ancient Israel: A Short History from Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, BAS, Englewoods Cliff, Washington, Prentice Hall)There's also a huge problem with Exodus 1:11, either one or both of the Cities of Pithom and Rameses are anachronistic, one reason that negates the silly claim of contemporary accounts.But, I await your dates from the Book of Exodus, and I think further study on your part of decent quality academic articles, instead of scanning a few fundy websites, would enlighten you as to why no reputable archaeologist takes the events in the Book of Exodus seriously. At best you will have a few amatuers twisting every ounce of plausibility out of circumstantial evidence, but still coming up with nothing concrete.Brian.Edited by Brian, : spelling and added info

Can you provide the references from the Old Testament that tells us about a ruling dynasty (only over part of Egypt) being overthrown by a sustained campaign began by Khamose and carried forward by Ahmose, does the Bible even mention them?Brian.

Sticking to the Merneptah stele it confirms that Exodus was written well after the (alleged) events i describes.As the article you quote states it must have been inscribed well after the Exodus, sicne Israel is well established in Canaan at that time.Exodus 13:17 tells us: Obviously at the time of writing there must have been an identifiable "land of the Philistines" - and the writer seems to believe that there were hostile Philistines there.However the Philistines did not settle in the area until the reign of Rameses III - who came after Merneptah. Thus Exodus 13:17 was certainly written many years after the Exodus was supposed to have happened. And it appears that it was written so much later that the writer wrongly thought that the Philistines were there !

quote:

---

I'm sorry but absolutely nothing in your post has anything to do with your earlier stupid assertion that some new Pharaoh erased the recorded inscriptions of Hebrews in Egypt. Nor does it have anything to do with the fact that at the supposed time of the Exodus no new Pharaoh came to the throne in Egypt.

---

Obviously, you have to read again, calmy and as you would about retroviruses, and put aside your continueing paranioa. I gave you three examples - a scholar advocating egypt's writings are bloated, and that this occured with other nations with Egypt. There are also evidences that new pharoahs erased inscriptions. However, there is no need to scrutinise this to make black from white: there is no other ancient narratives over 3000 years old of equal status - not in the M/E, India, China or any place else. There were numerous coups and assaults on the pharoah's thrones, and the new king assuming himself divine - it even occurs today in this region.The issue was your bold assertion of 'myth', what is generally well vindicated overall: that Israel and Egypt had a long-standing and intense history, which is not negated by your requirement of ethchings shown crossed out: there is no self-incriminating letters from Mr. Pharoah. Thus I asked you to name another document with equivalent evidences of its narratives. The ball is in your 'show me your evidence' of what all scholars assert, or else you should except that the narratives are not mythical, and what are its subsequences other than the myth jargon.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Can you provide the references from the Old Testament that tells us about a ruling dynasty (only over part of Egypt) being overthrown by a sustained campaign began by Khamose and carried forward by Ahmose, does the Bible even mention them?

---

That would be out of context in egypt and israel's history. But there is reference to a 'new king arose in Egypt who knew not the Hebrews' (meaning, became adversarial).

quote:

---

But, I await your dates from the Book of Exodus, and I think further study on your part of decent quality academic articles, instead of scanning a few fundy websites, would enlighten you as to why no reputable archaeologist takes the events in the Book of Exodus seriously. At best you will have a few amatuers twisting every ounce of plausibility out of circumstantial evidence, but still coming up with nothing concrete.

​

Brian.

---

The articles were fine - reputable and in parallel with a host of others, but your article may not be. The Israel stele is definitely true to its time - so are the names listed. The world knows of the Hitites, Canaan, the Moabs, Ramases, Pithom and the ancient Egyptian diets and preist names, for example, from the OT - 1000s of years before archeology was invented. Earlier, someone even asked whether the OT calendar was accurate and the oldest - and these links were also supplied: it shows a lack of credibility in knowledge and conclusions made.

Which has NOTHING to do with your earlier stupid assertion that some new Pharaoh erased the recorded inscriptions of Hebrews in Egypt. Nor does it have anything to do with the fact that at the supposed time of the Exodus no new Pharaoh came to the throne in Egypt. Correct, as I pointed out. And such things leave evidence that changes were made. Sorry, that simply weakens your already non-existent case. There are no such insciptions where anyone has found references to some little jerkwater nation like Israel at the time the Exodus supposedly happened or that there were even any Hebrews in Egypt at the time either.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Sticking to the Merneptah stele it confirms that Exodus was written well after the (alleged) events i describes.
As the article you quote states it must have been inscribed well after the Exodus, sicne Israel is well established in Canaan at that time.

---

It had to be if it tells of a war which happened.

quote:

---

Exodus 13:17 tells us:

​

Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, "The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt."

​

Obviously at the time of writing there must have been an identifiable "land of the Philistines" - and the writer seems to believe that there were hostile Philistines there.

​

However the Philistines did not settle in the area until the reign of Rameses III - who came after Merneptah. Thus Exodus 13:17 was certainly written many years after the Exodus was supposed to have happened. And it appears that it was written so much later that the writer wrongly thought that the Philistines were there !

---

The philistines were around in the time of the Patriachs - some 400 years before Moses. There was an attempt by the tribe of Benjamin to escape egypt, which the other tribes did not agree with, and this tribe were massacred by the Philistines along the coastal route, almost 40,000 of them. This is what is the meaning of the verse: "The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt." The bones of the benjamin tribe would scare the Israelites in Moses' time - the reason another route was taken. The philistines emerged and disappeared from the M/E exactly as depicted in the OT. I doubt whether you have sufficiently contemplated what you are inferring: that a myth was made of a 3000 year period, with fake stats along every 200 year period: your kidding!

quote:

---

I'd be very interested in any dates that you can provide from the Book of Exodus.

---

That's hardly an intelligent question - the OT is pervasive of dates - diarised, calenderised, and calculatable. The date of leaving Egypt was diarised, as they left: 'This month shall be unto you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you' (Ex 12/2). This is the passover dates and celebrated every year since then.

quote:

---

Which has NOTHING to do with your earlier stupid assertion that some new Pharaoh erased the recorded inscriptions of Hebrews in Egypt. Nor does it have anything to do with the fact that at the supposed time of the Exodus no new Pharaoh came to the throne in

---

Progress! You did'nt use the 'myth' word this time.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that it is myth, and actually a fantasy tale.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

actually, the whole first part of the book is true... right up to where he meets the norsemen. the rest is beowulf.

No, no Philistines around at the time of the Patriarchs. Not unless you want to move the Patriarchs to the 12th century BC !

This isn't really much help, since your original claim was that "Israel does back-up their history with authentic, contemporanous accounts,". So where does the Old testament back-up Hyksos history?As for new king arising, this happened a lot in ancient Egypt.Brian

Well, I never asked about the OT, I asked about the dates in the Book of Exodus, since, again, you seem to forget your original claim, in this case "The descriptions in the book of Exodus contains too many authentic, historical details, and too many dates and names".So, let's try again. What authentic dates does the Book of Exodus contain, we have the first month of the year in Ex. 2:12, any idea what year we would be looking at? The month was given, whether it was 'diarised' is a different matter.Brian.